Introduction
This page presents how 2025-gold do cope efficiently with the StableMarking examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.
The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents 2025-gold' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.
You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).
2025-gold versus ITS-Tools
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| 2025-gold | ITS-Tools | Both tools | 2025-gold | ITS-Tools | ||
| All computed OK | 7 | 8 | 1842 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| 2025-gold = ITS-Tools | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 1043 | 814 |
| 2025-gold > ITS-Tools | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| 2025-gold < ITS-Tools | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 503 | 1354 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 8 | 7 | 96 | |||
On the chart below, 
denote cases where
the two tools did computed all results without error,
denote cases where the two tool did computed the
same number of values (but not al values in the examination),
denote cases where 2025-gold
computed more values than ITS-Tools,
denote cases where 2025-gold
computed less values than ITS-Tools,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool computed a bad value and 
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
2025-gold wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.
2025-gold versus Tapaal
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for Tapaal, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| 2025-gold | Tapaal | Both tools | 2025-gold | Tapaal | ||
| All computed OK | 323 | 32 | 1526 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| 2025-gold = Tapaal | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 755 | 1126 |
| 2025-gold > Tapaal | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| 2025-gold < Tapaal | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 864 | 1017 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 32 | 323 | 72 | |||
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed all results without error,
denote cases where the two tool did computed the
same number of values (but not al values in the examination),
denote cases where 2025-gold
computed more values than Tapaal,
denote cases where 2025-gold
computed less values than Tapaal,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool computed a bad value and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
2025-gold wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.
2025-gold versus TY
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for TY, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to TY are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| 2025-gold | TY | Both tools | 2025-gold | TY | ||
| All computed OK | 1134 | 18 | 411 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| 2025-gold = TY | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 1451 | 416 |
| 2025-gold > TY | — | — | 304 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| 2025-gold < TY | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 1748 | 119 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 13 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 18 | 1121 | 86 | |||
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed all results without error,
denote cases where the two tool did computed the
same number of values (but not al values in the examination),
denote cases where 2025-gold
computed more values than TY,
denote cases where 2025-gold
computed less values than TY,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool computed a bad value and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
2025-gold wins when points are below the diagonal, TY wins when points are above the diagonal.
2025-gold versus petrivet
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for petrivet, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to petrivet are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| 2025-gold | petrivet | Both tools | 2025-gold | petrivet | ||
| All computed OK | 1740 | 0 | 109 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| 2025-gold = petrivet | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 1750 | 99 |
| 2025-gold > petrivet | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| 2025-gold < petrivet | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 1786 | 63 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 354 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 21 | 1403 | 83 | |||
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed all results without error,
denote cases where the two tool did computed the
same number of values (but not al values in the examination),
denote cases where 2025-gold
computed more values than petrivet,
denote cases where 2025-gold
computed less values than petrivet,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool computed a bad value and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
2025-gold wins when points are below the diagonal, petrivet wins when points are above the diagonal.
2025-gold versus BVT-2026
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for 2025-gold and 1953 for BVT-2026, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing 2025-gold to BVT-2026 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
Important: here, 2025-gold is compared to BVT-2026. It is a good way to check how 2025-gold compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When 2025-gold is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| 2025-gold | BVT-2026 | Both tools | 2025-gold | BVT-2026 | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 37 | 1849 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| 2025-gold = BVT-2026 | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 0 | 1886 |
| 2025-gold > BVT-2026 | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| 2025-gold < BVT-2026 | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 0 | 1886 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 67 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 104 | 0 | 0 | |||
For this tool, there are no real execution so comparisons are useless.